One of the primary reasons this sort of shit continues is idiots like you who think there is any difference at all between republicans and democrats. You've been had my friend.
That doesn't make the current situation any better. Politicians have always been liars and cheats, the difference today is the power of the federal government in our every day lives. The executive branch is routinely and publicly ordering the assassination of US citizens. Granted I'm sure it happened in secret in the past, the fact that it happens openly and routinely now should scare the shit out of all of us.
Ok, think of it this way. Lets say instead of jumping into a car, the suspects picked up a pipe bomb with a dead-mans switch. Would the police chase them? No. They'd follow slowly at a safe distance. Now, why wouldn't they chase them with the same vigor as the car chase? There's a big difference between a car chase and a pipe bomb, and it's not really obvious at first. Both chases end with a lethal release of energy... the bomb explodes, the car crashes. No suspect fleeing from a murder scene is going to stop until he crashes after all... The difference is the cars lethal force is uni-directional. The POLICE'S lives are not in danger. When the suspects come to a stop that lethal force is applied in the opposite direction of the police. So the police will not risk their own lives, but if it's the public who's in danger from their actions they're not as concerned.
As usual some British asshole uses the word "yank" and "Cowboy" to describe something that's happening in his own backyard. This isn't a US problem, it's a police problem. If anything, UK police have an even bigger sense of "We're your mommy and daddy, do what we say" than they do in the US.
I could argue that it's possible my wife could, at any moment, turn into a Zombie and murder the rest of my family at any moment. This is, in fact, only slightly less likely than my family being killed by Jihadists. So I could continue my argument and say that I need to have a loaded hand gun cocked, loaded and pointed at her temple at all times just in case she turns, I can put her down before she infects the rest of us. My wife would obviously disagree with my reasoning... the chances of me slipping and making a mistake are far more likely. I could even get a little to drunk and angry one night and make a mistake! She'd say. But of course, all her arguing just proves she could be turning right now! I should put her in cuffs as well, just in case. Now she's struggling... I'd better look through all her personal affects to look for evidence of Zombie collusion. And all of this is only, slightly, more unlikely than what the federal government is arguing right now.
It's more like shes saying "I want to strike these down, but if I do it will be a big deal and I don't like the way you submitted your objections. So please resubmit them in the proper way so when I strike this down it'll really stick"
And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
The 2nd amendments is there so we can fight the government, not each other. There are many other examples of this, and in some early versions of the constitution it actually spells out that the amendment is for defense from the government. But you can look all that up, I'm not here to do what you should have learned in highschool. Again, this stuff is cut and dry, obvious, everyone should know this. There is no real debate about what they meant as there are hundreds of letters they sent back and forth from each other while the writing was going on to discuss what should be in the constitution. If you want to change our guns laws, you have to change the constitution. Period.
Remember when Sony Patented "Hologram" because they produced one of the worse games in history and it was sort of remotely 3D like... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-8hnyDPCU Ok, it wasn't even remotely 3D... but it was the worst game I can ever remember playing.
Anyway, good luck convincing people your phone is "Self aware"
Because the Right was designed to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government... not each other. It was specifically designed to allow the citizens a chance for armed insurrection in the event of a military coup or totalitarian regime taking power. Which is exactly why the very first thing a government does in either of those situations is to ban firearms.
For example the gun control laws enacted in Germany after the treaty of Versailles:
The treaty signed had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing instability to hold the state together in the depression, they adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens before they completely disarmed their military. Intended to prevent a conflict between the states, Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
Now, keep in mind why these gun laws were passed. It was not for the safety of the public, it was to protect the government from the people because the government was no longer allowed to own guns. They feared the people would overthrow the regime. When the Nazis came to power they manipulated these and existing laws to actually allow gun ownership again. Often this is totally misrepresented by pro-gun people as if Hitler banned guns, when he actually did the complete opposite. Guns were entirely illegal when he took power, and the Nazis change the law to allow pro-nazi groups to own weapons. This solidified their power and guaranteed no overthrow of their regime.
Because Apples products are marketing and bullshit... and I don't think Apples upper managements quite realize that just yet while Steve Jobs knew it all along.
And you can buy just about any other MP3 player on the market with the same features for under $50... AND you're not forced to use apple iTunes, the worst piece of software I've ever had the misfortune to use. It boggles the mind how Apples customer continue to pay these kinds of prices for such inferior products.
If the Feds can leak so can the EFF. Depending on the severity of what the governments been up to (and I'm fairly sure it's far beyond anything we've even thought of) and the amount of it that's actually revealed in this document, I personally would sacrifice my citizenship to let the rest of the world know about it... and I think the EFF is a lot more dedicated than I.
Either you're kidding or you don't have the remotes clue how the US constitution works. Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws which were used to keep the poor and minorities from voting for nearly a century. Preventing someone from expressing their constitutional rights via red tape is no different than outright banning it all together.
Sounds great, put it to a vote. You need a super majority to win. Lets do it, but after you lose can we all agree that gun control advocates have to stfu for at least 10 years?
The 2nd amendment applied to cannons when they wrote it. You can still own and fire a cannon to this day. Also, there were 40 caliber repeating air rifles at the time that were deadly at 150 yards and could go through 22 rounds without reloading or re-pumping the chamber. MORE rounds than modern "assault" riffles. I know there's debate about it, but one side is completely misinformed about the issue. The framers knew exactly what they were making legal. They knew the consequences to. Your denial of the facts is equivalent to the global warming deniers, with the exception that the global warming deniers still have a very remote chance of being correct.
Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons."
Which will get struck down by the supreme court the second it hits their docket. Lets just stop pretending like the gun control lobby isn't trying to change the constitution. Because the ONLY way to achieve their goals is to do so. Lets have a vote, so we can all see it fail miserably and get on with our lives.
A lot of people think the framers didn't foresee the advanced weaponry that we have today, and would have never included it in the right to bare arms. This is a ludicrous argument. At the time the constitution was written, they had CANNONS. Cannons are still legal to this day! Later, with the invention of primers somehow the right to bare arms was a bit too much... because if you could just slide a shell into the cannon it was somehow a lot more dangerous than blackpowder. So clearly they never thought of repeating rifles! Ah ha! That's the problem, they never thought people could rapidly fire a gun, over and over... oh wait, let me introduce you to the Girandoni air rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle It could fire 22 rounds without reloading or refilling the air reservoir. It had no muzzle flash, no smoke, was nearly silent and fired a ball equivalent to a modern 45 acp that was deadly at over 150 yards. This gun was in many ways superior to modern assault rifles and was in wide production and in use by the Austrian army 8 years before our constitution was adopted. There were plenty of Austrian mercenaries carrying them in the states as well and it was a hanging offense to be caught with one by the British military because they were so deadly.
So tell us again how the framers had no idea how dangerous guns would become. Or how in Chicago, where we have the strictest gun laws in the country, the rate of death by firearm is higher than it is in Afghanistan, and active war zone, where it's common for people to carry full auto AK's.
Even if only 5% of them are, my points still valid. Our "hardened nukes" are designed for dirt and concrete bunkers that are only a few feet or meters think. The weakest asteroids we're going to find are going to be mostly ice. Ice that's been ice for millions of years. It's going to make concrete look like marshmallow fluff. Add to that the fact that a missile headed at a target in space is going to be moving exponentially faster than anything we have on earth and you have yourself an impact that is not survivable by any technology we'll see in the near future.
We wont know what it's made of... but there's a high likelihood it'll be solid iron. We don't have anything that can penetrate 15 meters of solid iron in-tact.
See, this is where I don't get it. If I were to be storing info that I didn't people to get... weather it be child porn like this guy or I had some super sekret government documents, I wouldn't rely encryption at all. Just put the computers on UPS's, then coat the hardrives with phosphorus. Glue a model rocket igniter to the works and hook it up to a relay. When they pull the plug on the computer, it ignites and the hard drive turns into a pool of goo.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want it to be locked down and proprietary, don't publish.
While I agree with you mostly, one of the biggest problems they have (especially in medicine) is unpublished papers.
Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html
Over 100,000 people were killed in the United States due to 1 paper that went unpublished.
One of the primary reasons this sort of shit continues is idiots like you who think there is any difference at all between republicans and democrats. You've been had my friend.
Couldn't they just ask Bradley Manning to get them for him? Oh wait...
That doesn't make the current situation any better. Politicians have always been liars and cheats, the difference today is the power of the federal government in our every day lives. The executive branch is routinely and publicly ordering the assassination of US citizens. Granted I'm sure it happened in secret in the past, the fact that it happens openly and routinely now should scare the shit out of all of us.
Ok, think of it this way. Lets say instead of jumping into a car, the suspects picked up a pipe bomb with a dead-mans switch. Would the police chase them? No. They'd follow slowly at a safe distance. Now, why wouldn't they chase them with the same vigor as the car chase? There's a big difference between a car chase and a pipe bomb, and it's not really obvious at first. Both chases end with a lethal release of energy... the bomb explodes, the car crashes. No suspect fleeing from a murder scene is going to stop until he crashes after all... The difference is the cars lethal force is uni-directional. The POLICE'S lives are not in danger. When the suspects come to a stop that lethal force is applied in the opposite direction of the police. So the police will not risk their own lives, but if it's the public who's in danger from their actions they're not as concerned.
Oh really?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/two-dead-after-police-car-chase-8554266.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/sep/04/azelle-rodney-shooting-police-chase-video
As usual some British asshole uses the word "yank" and "Cowboy" to describe something that's happening in his own backyard. This isn't a US problem, it's a police problem. If anything, UK police have an even bigger sense of "We're your mommy and daddy, do what we say" than they do in the US.
I could argue that it's possible my wife could, at any moment, turn into a Zombie and murder the rest of my family at any moment. This is, in fact, only slightly less likely than my family being killed by Jihadists. So I could continue my argument and say that I need to have a loaded hand gun cocked, loaded and pointed at her temple at all times just in case she turns, I can put her down before she infects the rest of us. My wife would obviously disagree with my reasoning... the chances of me slipping and making a mistake are far more likely. I could even get a little to drunk and angry one night and make a mistake! She'd say. But of course, all her arguing just proves she could be turning right now! I should put her in cuffs as well, just in case. Now she's struggling... I'd better look through all her personal affects to look for evidence of Zombie collusion. And all of this is only, slightly, more unlikely than what the federal government is arguing right now.
It's more like shes saying "I want to strike these down, but if I do it will be a big deal and I don't like the way you submitted your objections. So please resubmit them in the proper way so when I strike this down it'll really stick"
or at least, that's what I'm hoping for.
And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
How's Thomas Jefferson for you?
And before anyone claims I misquoted him:
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/tree-liberty-quotation
The 2nd amendments is there so we can fight the government, not each other.
There are many other examples of this, and in some early versions of the constitution it actually spells out that the amendment is for defense from the government. But you can look all that up, I'm not here to do what you should have learned in highschool. Again, this stuff is cut and dry, obvious, everyone should know this. There is no real debate about what they meant as there are hundreds of letters they sent back and forth from each other while the writing was going on to discuss what should be in the constitution. If you want to change our guns laws, you have to change the constitution. Period.
Remember when Sony Patented "Hologram" because they produced one of the worse games in history and it was sort of remotely 3D like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-8hnyDPCU
Ok, it wasn't even remotely 3D... but it was the worst game I can ever remember playing.
Anyway, good luck convincing people your phone is "Self aware"
Because the Right was designed to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government... not each other. It was specifically designed to allow the citizens a chance for armed insurrection in the event of a military coup or totalitarian regime taking power. Which is exactly why the very first thing a government does in either of those situations is to ban firearms.
For example the gun control laws enacted in Germany after the treaty of Versailles:
The treaty signed had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing instability to hold the state together in the depression, they adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens before they completely disarmed their military. Intended to prevent a conflict between the states, Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
Now, keep in mind why these gun laws were passed. It was not for the safety of the public, it was to protect the government from the people because the government was no longer allowed to own guns. They feared the people would overthrow the regime. When the Nazis came to power they manipulated these and existing laws to actually allow gun ownership again. Often this is totally misrepresented by pro-gun people as if Hitler banned guns, when he actually did the complete opposite. Guns were entirely illegal when he took power, and the Nazis change the law to allow pro-nazi groups to own weapons. This solidified their power and guaranteed no overthrow of their regime.
Because Apples products are marketing and bullshit... and I don't think Apples upper managements quite realize that just yet while Steve Jobs knew it all along.
And you can buy just about any other MP3 player on the market with the same features for under $50... AND you're not forced to use apple iTunes, the worst piece of software I've ever had the misfortune to use. It boggles the mind how Apples customer continue to pay these kinds of prices for such inferior products.
Full disclosure: I hate Apple
Ok, at what point in your little fantasy world did Apple have market dominance over anyone other than graphic artists with a chip on their shoulder?
If the Feds can leak so can the EFF. Depending on the severity of what the governments been up to (and I'm fairly sure it's far beyond anything we've even thought of) and the amount of it that's actually revealed in this document, I personally would sacrifice my citizenship to let the rest of the world know about it... and I think the EFF is a lot more dedicated than I.
Well, you're already over your limit then.
Didn't we just have a slashdot article about how US radiation limits are ridiculously low and need to be re-assessed?
Either you're kidding or you don't have the remotes clue how the US constitution works. Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws which were used to keep the poor and minorities from voting for nearly a century. Preventing someone from expressing their constitutional rights via red tape is no different than outright banning it all together.
Sounds great, put it to a vote. You need a super majority to win. Lets do it, but after you lose can we all agree that gun control advocates have to stfu for at least 10 years?
The 2nd amendment applied to cannons when they wrote it. You can still own and fire a cannon to this day. Also, there were 40 caliber repeating air rifles at the time that were deadly at 150 yards and could go through 22 rounds without reloading or re-pumping the chamber. MORE rounds than modern "assault" riffles. I know there's debate about it, but one side is completely misinformed about the issue. The framers knew exactly what they were making legal. They knew the consequences to. Your denial of the facts is equivalent to the global warming deniers, with the exception that the global warming deniers still have a very remote chance of being correct.
Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons."
Which will get struck down by the supreme court the second it hits their docket. Lets just stop pretending like the gun control lobby isn't trying to change the constitution. Because the ONLY way to achieve their goals is to do so. Lets have a vote, so we can all see it fail miserably and get on with our lives.
A lot of people think the framers didn't foresee the advanced weaponry that we have today, and would have never included it in the right to bare arms. This is a ludicrous argument. At the time the constitution was written, they had CANNONS. Cannons are still legal to this day! Later, with the invention of primers somehow the right to bare arms was a bit too much... because if you could just slide a shell into the cannon it was somehow a lot more dangerous than blackpowder. So clearly they never thought of repeating rifles! Ah ha! That's the problem, they never thought people could rapidly fire a gun, over and over... oh wait, let me introduce you to the Girandoni air rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
It could fire 22 rounds without reloading or refilling the air reservoir. It had no muzzle flash, no smoke, was nearly silent and fired a ball equivalent to a modern 45 acp that was deadly at over 150 yards. This gun was in many ways superior to modern assault rifles and was in wide production and in use by the Austrian army 8 years before our constitution was adopted. There were plenty of Austrian mercenaries carrying them in the states as well and it was a hanging offense to be caught with one by the British military because they were so deadly.
So tell us again how the framers had no idea how dangerous guns would become. Or how in Chicago, where we have the strictest gun laws in the country, the rate of death by firearm is higher than it is in Afghanistan, and active war zone, where it's common for people to carry full auto AK's.
Even if only 5% of them are, my points still valid. Our "hardened nukes" are designed for dirt and concrete bunkers that are only a few feet or meters think. The weakest asteroids we're going to find are going to be mostly ice. Ice that's been ice for millions of years. It's going to make concrete look like marshmallow fluff. Add to that the fact that a missile headed at a target in space is going to be moving exponentially faster than anything we have on earth and you have yourself an impact that is not survivable by any technology we'll see in the near future.
We wont know what it's made of... but there's a high likelihood it'll be solid iron. We don't have anything that can penetrate 15 meters of solid iron in-tact.
What about when it's the size of a small city?
See, this is where I don't get it. If I were to be storing info that I didn't people to get... weather it be child porn like this guy or I had some super sekret government documents, I wouldn't rely encryption at all. Just put the computers on UPS's, then coat the hardrives with phosphorus. Glue a model rocket igniter to the works and hook it up to a relay. When they pull the plug on the computer, it ignites and the hard drive turns into a pool of goo.